291–300 of 517 posts
Fact checking box like on twitter would be better and if you can't provide it, don't pretend you know anything about the content.
I think it's smart to start trying things here. This has infinite flaws with it, but from a business and learnings standpoint it's a step toward the right direction. Over time we're going to both learn and decide what is and isn't important to designate as "AI" - Google's approach here at least breaks this into rules of what "AI" things are important to label: • Makes a real person appear to say or do something they…
Basically, Google decides what’s real and what’s not. Cool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The AI tags are fundamentally useless. The premise is that it would prevent someone from misleading you by thinking that something happened when it didn't, but someone who wants to do that would just not tag it then. Which is where the real abuse comes in: You post footage of a real event and they say it was AI, and ban you for it etc., because what actually happened is politically inconvenient. And the only way to p…
I think you have a bit backwards. If you want to publish pixels on a screen there should be no assumption that they represent real events. If you want to publish proof of an event, you should have some pixels on a screen along with some cryptographic signature from a device sensor that would necessitate atleast a big corporation like Nikon / Sony / etc. being "in on it" to fake. Also since no one likes RAW footage it…
It's as if everyone in the world just forgot that fraud has been illegal the whole time.
Namely it requires payment under false pretense
AI that is indistinguishable from reality is a certainty for the not-so-distant future. That future will come, and it will come sooner than anyone's expecting. Yet all I see is society trying to prevent the inevitable from installing itself (because it's "scary", "dangerous", "undermines the very pillars of society" etc.), instead of preparing itself for when the inevitable occurs. People seem to have finally accepte…
We've been preparing for a while? It's all that work people have been doing for years with asynchronous cryptography, ecc, and tech like what happens during heavy rain downpours and that coin with a bit in front of it. These are all the proper preparation for AI. AI can't generate a private key given a public key. AI can't generate the appropriate text given a hash. So we build a society upon these things AI can't do…
These humans would simply generate a public key from the private key, then post it under their human identity. The main threat from AI in the future IMO is not rouge AI, but bad human actors using it for their own nefarious agendas. This is how the first "evil" AI will probably come about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you want to publish proof of an event, you should have some pixels on a screen along with some cryptographic signature from a device sensor that would necessitate atleast a big corporation like Nikon / Sony / etc. being "in on it" to fake. At which point nobody could verify anything that happened with any existing camera, including all past events as of today and all future events captured with any existing came…
also the three letter agencies (not just from the US) will have access to private keys of at least some manufacturers, allowing them to authenticate fake events and sow chaos by strategically leaking keys for cameras that recorded something they really don't like.
Of course that says nothing about the issues of corruption of judges in the court system, but that is a "relatively" new issues that DOES absolutely need to be addressed.
(Shoot one could argue that the way certain folks are behaving right now is in itself unconstitutional and those folks should be booted)
Countries all over the world (EVEN IN EUROPE WITH THE GDPR) are a lot less "gracious" with anonymous communication. The UK actually has been trying to outlaw private encryption, for a while now, as an example, but there are worse examples from certain other countries. You can find them by examining their political system, most (all? I did quit a bit of research, but also was not interested in spending a ton of time on this topic) are "conservative leaning"
Note that I'm not talking just about existing policy, but countries that are continually trying to enact new policy.
Just like the US has "guarantees" on free speech, the right to vote, etc. The world needs guaranteed access to freedom of speech, religion, right to vote, healthcare, food, water, shelter, electricity, and medical care. I don't know of a single country in the world, including the US, that does anywhere close to a good of job with that.
I'm actually hoping that Ukraine is given both the motive and opportunity to push the boundaries in that regard. If you've been following some of the policy stuff, it is a step in the right direction. I 100% know they won't even come close to getting the job done, but they are definitely moving in the right direction. I definitely do not support this war, but with all of the death and destruction, at least there is a tiny little pinprick of light...
...Even if a single country in the world got everything right, we still need to find a way to unite everyone.
Our time in this universe is limited and our time on earth more-so. We should have been working together 60 years ago for a viable off-planet colony and related stuff. If the world ended tomorrow, humanity would cease to exist. You need over 100,000 people to sustain the human race in the event a catastrophic event wipes almost everyone out. Even if we had 1,000 people in space, our species would be doomed.
I am really super surprised that basic survival needs are NOT on the table when we are all arguing about religion, abortion, guns, etc. Like really?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't an error, either. It's doing exactly what it's intended to, exactly as it's intended to do it. The error is in the human assumption that the ability to construct syntactically coherent language signals self-awareness or sentience. That it should be capable of understanding the semantics correctly, because humans obviously can. There really is no correct word to describe what's happening, because LLMs are eff…
> It isn't an error, either. It's doing exactly what it's intended to, exactly as it's intended to do it. If the output is incorrect, that's error. It may not be a bug, but it is still error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * Showing a realistic depiction of a tornado or other weather events moving toward a real city that didn’t actually happen > * Making it appear as if hospital workers turned away sick or wounded patients > * Depicting a public figure stealing something they did not steal, or admitting to stealing something when they did not make that admission Considering they own the platform, why not just ban this type of content…
The third one could easily be satire. Imagine that a politician is accused of stealing from the public purse, and issues a meme-worthy press statement denying it, and someone generates AI content of that politician claiming not to have stolen a car or something using a similar script. Valid satire, fair use of the original content: parody is considered transformative. But it should be labeled as AI generated, or it's…
It was never historically the case that satire was expected to be labelled, or instantly recognized by anyone who stumbled across it. Satire is rude. It's meant to mock people—it is intended to muddle and provoke confused reactions. That's free expression nonetheless!
Is there a word missing from the title here? Requires whom?
The title was editorialized, which people do far more often than they should. The original title, with the domain name next to it, would have been fine.